Express promise to repay a time-barred debt creates a fresh enforceable obligation; admissions can support partial decree when discharge is unproved.

A written and signed express promise to repay a time-barred debt creates a fresh enforceable obligation under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so limitation does not defeat a claim founded on that promise. The earlier acknowledgment after expiry of limitation was insufficient by itself, but the later undertaking to repay by cheques satisfied the statutory requirements. On the pleadings, the defendant's alleged full discharge was unproved, the admissions in the written statement and the written promise counted against the maker, and the defendant did not testify. The HC therefore upheld liability only to the extent of the proved outstanding balance and granted relief accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendant's letters and conduct constituted a valid acknowledgment or express promise so as to overcome the plea of limitation and support recovery of the debt. (ii) Whether the admissions in the written statement and the surrounding record justified a decree on admission and established liability for the balance amount.

Issue (i): Whether the defendant's letters and conduct constituted a valid acknowledgment or express promise so as to overcome the plea of limitation and support recovery of the debt.

Analysis: The claim based merely on acknowledgment after expiry of limitation could not be sustained under the law of acknowledgment. However, the later letter contained an express undertaking to repay the time-barred debt and set out a mode of repayment by cheques. Such a promise satisfied the requirements of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, creating an enforceable fresh obligation independent of the original limitation bar.

Conclusion: The promise to pay the time-barred debt was valid and enforceable, and the plea of limitation did not defeat the claim founded on that promise.

Issue (ii): Whether the admissions in the written statement and the surrounding record justified a decree on admission and established liability for the balance amount.

Analysis: The written statement admitted payment of a substantial sum in purported full quit, but no proof of such discharge was produced. The defendant also did not enter the witness box. Admissions in the pleadings and the written promise were treated as strong evidence against the maker, and the court found the discharge plea unsubstantiated. At the same time, the evidence supported only part of the claimed amount, as the proved dishonoured cheques covered less than the full pleaded liability.

Conclusion: The defendant was held liable for the proved balance, and a partial decree on admission and evidence was warranted in favour of the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded only to the extent of the proved outstanding liability, with interest, and failed for the remainder of the claimed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A written and signed express promise to pay a time-barred debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 creates a fresh enforceable obligation, and admissions in pleadings may support a decree where the alleged discharge is unproved.

---